There are no bad players in this trade :) The 10pot has strongly low post potentials with combined -25% in passing/OIQ. If he grows below average (predicted height now - 200cm) - I have a low post PG which is likely not going to be very effective. If he grows more, he will be a more useful player as a low post SG. I decided to take on that risk of him continuing to grow (your prayers towards that are also welcome haha) and gave up a solid 213cm 3pt shooting SF with a very bright future. Balo's scouted big with a mediocre overall potential, but great low post inners who has a ceiling of 2WL player was another nice chip. We will find out the winner of this trade (if there is any) on day 40 season 77, once Howard stops growing - hope he doesn't stop earlier :)
--
72 S
26 j.
How the Fair Play Committee members voted:<br />
- volunteers voted "Revert and punish": 0<br />
- volunteers voted "Revert": 6<br />
- volunteers voted "Fair": 2<br />
<br />
These reasons were chosen by the volunteers during voting:<br />
1 - Significantly unfair to other users (for example, when strong and cheap player is moved to lower division).<br />
1 - Suspicion that trade’s goal is to help one of the teams<br />
4 - Overuse of disbalanced trades. Players' trade somehow has to benefit both teams (financially, in respect of team composition, etc). Good but expensive player can be traded to a bit worse but cheaper player. This type of trade can not be overused.<br />
<br />
--
72 S
28 j.
--
(Traduire) (Traduire EN)
+0
:D :D :D :D hmmmm I have seen some USA trades reverted before that for sure deserve to be reverted and I supported the revert, but when you compare this to the trades that have gone through this season and last, this trade getting reverted is far from consistent and not fair to the users involved. The reasons for voting revert do not even match up with the reality of the trade :D It appears that there is some other reason why this trade was reverted, for a reason that maybe their wasn't an option to choose? Because the options chosen don't match up. Foto is a high commodity as a stretch bigs, Hungate has WL2 potential. This trade deserves to be reverted but others far from being close to this balanced are allowed? Maybe it is a guessing game of the value of the 10 in the future? So we revert based on a guessing game? In the past, the FPC was more strict, I believe even then, this trade would have been accepted. This is the first of quite a few reverted USA trades I have commented on, as the reason, I find it far from consistent with the last couple of seasons.
--
72 S
28 j.
I have a huge respect for Coach and understand his intentions to protect USA community. In general I always support smaller communities and think that keeping them healthy and steadily growing they is very important part of this game.
But this is not the case with this trade. And this is not the case with most of Wilt’s trades this season. Being part of FPC he made number of very disputable trades which, in my opinion, should be avoided by FPC member.
Saying all that I would suggest USA to find another person to represent them in FPC if Wilt’s intentions remain to search and make such bordeline trades.
I have nothing against Wilt in person and FPC members have all the rights to trade like all other game players, but if number of your trades creates discussions about their legality and are poorly accepted by game community, it means that better not to trade like that, or trade being out of FPC.
--
72 S
28 j.
Benislovas, you have raised a couple of good points, but...
Your trades are reported probably the most frequently in the game, 5 reported trades since the beginning of last season (around 1 in 11 reported trades). Are you sure you are the best to advise on how to avoid borderline trades? A bit of a hypocrisy, huh?
In other news, from now on I will discuss every trade with any US team with FPC, so that everyone could be more than certain that there is nothing shady going on.
I have also got pre-approval for a trade with Porcia, with which you have personally disagreed.
Regarding this trade, I guess there is a huge variation in the perceived value of 10pots. My and Balo's judgement said it is fine, Coach, in fact, advised against giving up Fotovic for Howard. I will try to learn what were the key objections in this case with other FPC members, because so far the argumentation was scarce.
--
72 S
28 j.
As I wrote before, I was trying not to be personal, but you simply attacked me personally, so I feel like I should respond here.
I have no problem with somebody reporting my trades, none of them were reverted this season. Actually I made one very questionable trade with Mesainiai, for which I got green light from FPC in advance. I think it was borderline and if I was a member of FPC would vote to revert and never suggested such trade at all.
But the main difference is that I am not FPC member, so I have no influence on their decisions. If you decided that it is Ok, it is ok for me also.
Speaking about this trade, you mention that 10 potential has some -20 inner, so he is not that good. But somehow you forget to mention that Fotovic is not that greit either - skills raised where he has bigger pluses, but he also has 3 main skills needed with -20 or more. Which does not make such a great asset of him.
And such repeats in all your explanations - like you giving golden players with lower potential and receiving only bad higher potential players. This was not true in several cases already and it has to stop.
--
72 S
28 j.
First of all, benislovas isn't a member of FPC compared to Wilt100 so there isn't much of hypocrisy. It seems more of a personal attack on benislovas than keeping it straight.
Secondly, it does bring a shade on FPC as a whole if two members can decide what is proper trade and later on other members of FPC revert such trade. It really makes me doubt judgement of FPC - are those two members competent enough or those who voted revert this trade are not competent to be in FPC?
Personally I had no issue with FPC but now I start to question if all decisions they make aren't for personal gain/motive.
--
72 S
28 j.
--
(Traduire) (Traduire EN)
+8
Well Salvius, it looks like these members trade had different guildelines than all other trades reported and accepted by the FPC so I am not sure the fault is on them solely at at all. However, I am all for the death of the FPC.
--
72 S
28 j.
--
(Traduire) (Traduire EN)
+6
Montrer les réponses masquées: 18
or tighter restrictions that I have mentioned many times the last few seasons that some users are against, though tighter restrictions helps facilitate "more balanced" trades that I believe the community would be happier with than the "free for all" options now. But some would rather have all trades accepted - heard similar arguments before. Here two players that Balo was receiving filled a need that he felt he had. Will the 10 potential player likely be a better player? Very likely so (there is no such thing as a perfectly balanced trade). But is it such an unbalanced trade? Both teams got what they wanted. Many trades far more unbalanced have been allowed to go through in seasons past is what I am saying. To question their motives considering the overall picture of things I don't agree here at all.
--
72 S
28 j.
That’s the thing with this trade. This trade is completely in line with other trades made this season. That’s why it was made. Howard filled a need that wilt had with his younger guys, fotovic filled a need to fit with my age 22-24 group that I have coming up. Hungate is much better than weng and not to mention he is my scouted player. What we have here is a failure to remain consistent in voting and have failed the community in that. When you have different systems of judging trades based on who is trading then you get this.
--
72 S
28 j.
Échange/Prêt de joueurs: 
2.2
